Cindy Matthews, 382239 McKenzie Highway, stated she was
concerned about erosion from the McKenzie River on their property and
downstream.She indicated in 1995 their
family had the opportunity to build a home and cabinet business on the property
that had been in the family for over 50 years.She said they acquired all the required permits and they were required
to build 100 feet from the river.She
said they built 110 feet away from the river.She said when the 1996 flood came they had no water on the
property.She stated that construction
of their home began in spring 1996.She
said after the flood in 1996, the National Resource Conservation Service was
allowed in 1997 to install jetties upstream that would divert the water from
the north bank to the center.She noted
at that time the framing of their home was completed.She stated in 2002 the river channel changed and they no longer
had access to 40 acres of their farm.She added in 2003 they lost part of the dike that was protecting the
property and her home.She said the
erosion continued and they went to Lane County and the Army Corps of Engineer
and received no help.She indicated
they had to evacuate their home and business because their house is condemned
and is hanging over the riverbank.She
asked for help before it becomes a disaster.

Art Paz, 86950 Cedar Flat Road, stated for the past
two weeks he had been witnessing the erosion that has taken 110 feet of
riverbank from the Matthew property.He
noted since 2002 the Matthews had communicated with the Corps of Engineers, the
National Resource Conservation Service and Lane County without a definition of
any clear decisive and timely direction.He commented the County needs to show the integrity and determination of
serving the community in bringing clarity to the Matthews’ incident.He said that Lane County needs to render
immediate assistance to mitigate further damage to the Matthews’ property, the
McKenzie River, the down river properties and the future recreational users of
the McKenzie River.He added the Eugene
Springfield Metropolitan Waterway Study representing the county and both
cities, needs to incorporate two or three McKenzie River citizens on their
study committee and they need to designate a design ready priority for the
study area of the East Springfield and Cedar Creek and the lower McKenzie
River.He submitted photographs that
showed the condition of the property as of two days ago.

Jim Haydon, 88360 Charley Lane,stated he lives in the flood plain across
from the Matthews’ property.He thinks
his property is also jeopardized.He
said the County has allowed development in areas of the river that overflow
channels during high water.He said all
changes in riverbanks would have effects on downstream currents and cause the
river to change channels instead of flowing into the overflow channels.He didn’t think Lane County officials are
competent to manage the McKenzie River in relationship to development.He thought Lane Code 16.224 flood hazard
reduction had been put aside in relation to his property.He asked what would happen if a flood takes
place.He noted the property had been
in his family for nine decades.

Kirsten La Shot, 88304 Charley Lane, stated that no agency
is willing to take responsibility and there is no recourse for citizens when
the government makes a mistake.She
commented she was as frustrated with her situation as the Matthews.She noted she lives down stream from them.She indicated she is dealing with water that
is being backed up onto her property by EWEB and the effects are long
term.She said they have lost an acre
of land that is underwater.

Dwyer stated that
they had emergency management working on this.He commented that the Matthews’ property was only the beginning of a
potential flood disaster.He said
things are occurring upstream that are impacting things downstream.He said they need to collectively work
together to prevent this from happening in the future but asked where the money
would come from.

Hampton indicated
they conducted a second site visit on the Matthews property with all of the
governmental agencies that could possibly help.He found it frustrating that all of the government agencies said
they couldn’t act.He stated the Corps
of Engineers said they could act, but they could only act when there is a flood
event.He said they need a change in
federal policy that would allow these agencies to take preventative action.

Shauna Wood, stated she lives downstream from the
Matthews’ property.She said they lost
approximately 800 feet long by 50 foot wide of their property.She said she would be in the same position
as the Matthews and hopes someone will take care of it.

Jerry Halgoun, 39607 McKenzie, supported the Matthews and
the people downstream.He said a
change took place on the river by the water bars that were placed
upstream.He added as the river
changed, it put the full force of the water into their island.He said as a result, the Matthews, Marshall,
Hart’s property and others will receive the impact of the river and erosion
will continue to take place.He noted
the dikes were put in the 40’s and 50’s and asked why they weren’t
maintained.He thought they were
transferred to the County from the Corps of Engineers.His concern is that the river has completely
changed.

Hampton commented
when the temporary barrier was put in 1947, the prevailing philosophy of the
Corps of Engineers was to try to control the river.He said that no longer is their philosophy.He said they think the river should find its
own course.He contacted the City of Springfield to let them know that the
river experts said there is a possibility of a flood event going into Cedar
Creek and affecting the Levi Landing area.He didn’t know if the Corps of Engineers was taking preventative action.

David Rodrigues, 87984 Heather Drive, stated he lives above
the Matthews property.He said the
Corps of Engineers put the bars in the river to protect the downstream
neighbor.He added they had a small rip
rap project.He didn’t think the levies
were responsible for the flooding.He
said the old river channel below the Matthews where the river has turned has
filled in with sediment and logs.He
said what it is doing upstream is drawing water faster than it can from
upstream.

Dale Matthews, 38127 McKenzie Highway, said they are not
mad at the County.He asked for
help.He said the only way to start is
from the bottom.He said they know the
County doesn’t have money and no one else does either.He said they have to go to the federal
government. He asked the Board to work with the federal government.

Green said the
County has to exhaust all of its resources and then ask the Corps to do
something on Lane County’s behalf.He
said they could talk with the federal representatives.He asked for a copy of this meeting to take
back to Washington, D.C. to watch what is taking place at the local level.

3.EMERGENCY BUSINESS

None.

4.COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE

None.

5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

a.RECOGNITION/Awards.

Green passed out the
Outstanding Intergovernmental Team Award from LCOG to Jim Dotson and Debbie
Phillips.

Green noted that
Lane County was recognized as one of the top employers for achieving and reaching
a plateau of over $100,000 for United Way.He thanked all the employees who contributed to the effort.

Green recognized
Tanya Heaton for her efforts with United Way.

6.COMMITTEE REPORTS

Legislative
Committee

* Seeking
Re-Authorization of Secure Rural Schools.

Tony Bieda,
Intergovernmental Relations Manager, explained this is Public Law 106393.He noted it was the technical name of the
current safety net payments that Lane County receives from the federal
government.He recalled this was first authorized
in Congress in 1999/2000 and thanks to the work of Lane County’s congressional
delegation in the House and Senate, they were able to secure substantial
funding for Lane County and all forest counties throughout the country in lieu
of the traditional revenue that was available to forest counties through a
percent of the timber harvest.

Bieda stated this
was a reminder and acknowledgment that they now have two years left of the act
and they will be working in conjunction with other coalitions in Oregon and
across the country to seek re-authorization of the act.He added it could be an extension of the act
for another five years or it could be re-visiting the whole formula and
structure, or Congress could decide that there is not enough money to continue
this as an entitlement and either discontinue it or make it subject to the
appropriations process, being comparable to payments in lieu of taxes.

Dwyer’s preference
would be to have a bill that would extend the sunset before they get into the
crux of things.He thought if they
extended the sunset they would have a greater chance to get the money.He wanted to work concurrently with other
aspects to see if they could be successful with that endeavor.

Morrison commented
that she is more positive about what is going to take place in the next session
of Congress.She sits on the National
Forest County Schools Coalition’s Executive Board and in the past three months
there had been work done in Washington, D.C with the subcommittees and with
staff.

Bieda played a video
on the Secure Rural Schools Act.

* Community
Corrections Funding/SB 1145.

Bieda explained that
this is the funding arrangement by which Lane County government has supervision
authority over a class of adult offenders in the state corrections system and
the funding that is made available to the county to pay for that
supervision.He noted what is at stake
with the outcome of Measure 30 is that $1.8 million would be Lane County’s
share of the disappropriation (or cut) to community corrections funding that
will occur on May 1 under the statute that was passed by the legislature last
fall.

The materials that
Bieda passed out previously (copy in file) outline the general background and
what some of the options are.He noted
there was no need for action other than to start the process.He said between the cuts to community
corrections, K-12, and Health and Human Services, that the legislature and the
governor’s office will have to have discussions between now and May 1.He didn’t know if that would produce any
type of mitigating action to avoid the $1.8 million decrement in funding for
community corrections.He recalled the
Board sent notice a year ago when the proposed budget for this biennium cut the
funding for community corrections below a level that was deemed to be
acceptable for Lane County government. He noted when the actual budget was
finally adopted, and the funding was restored, they rescinded the notice.

Dwyer asked where it
put Lane County regarding the agreed upon payments under SB 1145.

Bieda responded the
$1.8 million would trigger Lane County’s ability to opt out.He noted there had been discussion about the
Department of Corrections going back to the counties to authorize possible
workload reductions.

Dwyer asked what the
timeline was for Lane County to exercise the provisions of SB 1145 in terms of
opting out.

Wilson explained the
notice requirement is a 180-day notice.She said they have to have the trigger and legally be below the
amount.She stated that had not been
confirmed that the disappropriation bill would work for Lane County.She said she didn’t know the answer.

Dwyer stated they
served and rescinded the notice.He
said there is no requirement of when to rescind but there is a requirement for
when they notice.He thought it would
be to Lane County’s advantage that as soon as they ascertain that the formula
is below the current contractual obligation under SB 1145, they procedurally
notify the state that they expect them to keep their share of the bargain.

Van Vactor indicated
that Lane County received notice from the City of Eugene that they were
interested in renewing the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District and
expanding its boundaries.He contacted
Jim Gangle, County Assessor, since the original urban renewal district was
created property tax laws had changed.He explained that today the way urban renewal districts operate is that
they reduce revenue to other local governments like Lane County.

Richie Weinman, City
of Eugene, noted the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District was created
about 20 years ago to support the concept to create a first class research
facility that the University of Oregon had.He said it was controversial at the time and it never panned out the way
the university and the community had hoped.He said the renewal district was created in order to create an
infrastructure.He noted it is set to
expire next year and they are wanting to extend the district for another 20
years, focusing not on the Riverfront Research Park area, but on the new
federal courthouse area, making the connections between the city downtown area
and the river and recognizing the potential.He said they wanted to slightly expand the district to connect it with
downtown so it comes down Broadway and touches the current downtown renewal
district.He noted the district does
not generate a lot of taxes and it has spent much in the past, but it offers an
opportunity where there could be loans made to businesses that go in.He added it could generate future tax
revenue that would last longer than the district and would create revenue
outside of the district along Franklin Boulevard.He noted there are over 70 renewal districts throughout the State
of Oregon.

Dwyer thought it was
a question of Lane County resources.He
wanted it shown that by not providing this district in light of the fact that
there will be a new federal courthouse, that development wouldn’t occur without
a government subsidy to allow it to occur.He wasn’t convinced that would happen.He wasn’t convinced that development won’t occur on both sides of
Franklin Boulevard as a result of its proximity to the courthouse and the plans
for re-opening the mill race.He said
they need to see what would happen without government’s intervention instead of
assuming that none of this would happen unless they kick start this.He wasn’t willing to give any more County
tax money because ofa budget
deficit.

Gangle explained the
concept behind urban renewal is that it would cure urban blight.He said the assessor’s office establishes a
frozen base for the particular area.He
said the value increases in that area and the urban renewal district captures
the value and it is used to pay off bonds for the operation of the urban
renewal district.He noted that Lane
County would be foregoing revenue now through 2024, while the urban renewal is
implemented and the debt is paid off.He said the concept would be that in 2025 Lane County would capture the
growth that had occurred.He asked the
Board if this is something they wanted to support now.

Van Vactor asked if
the City of Eugene could share the proceeds from the urban renewal district in
an amount equivalent to what Lane County would be losing.

Sue Cutsogeorge,
City of Eugene, responded they couldn’t make a direct payment to Lane County.She said they were restricted in the use of
urban renewal funds to projects that are in the plan and the projects in the
plan have to achieve the goals of the plan in some way so a direct payment
couldn’t be made to a government for services.She added if there were projects within the district that Lane County
was interested in seeing happen it might be something that could be put in the
plan.

Weinman stated the
renewal district could not give money to the City of Eugene either.

Van Vactor asked if
the county had any authority to disagree with the amount of the indebtedness or
in any way object to the plan and stop the city council from going forward with
this proposal.

Weinman responded
that other public taxing agencies can comment and those comments get filed with
the city council acting as a renewal board, and they take those into
consideration.He added that Lane
County does not have veto authority.

Dwyer said this had
a serious impact on the citizens of Lane County outside of the boundaries.He said they need to change the law.He stated if the city wants to give away
their tax base to a district that was up to them.He didn’t want to have a law that allows them to give away Lane
County’s money and not have Lane County have any say in it. He said this would
happen with or without the city councilHe thought the people of Lane County deserved to have their shareof the tax dollars.

Van Vactor’s
recommendation was to correspond with the city council so they know Lane
County’s concerns, consistent with what they have discussed.He thought there would be more urban renewal
districts coming up for renewal in the future.He thought it was the time to start communicating.

Dwyer commented this
was a stretch of the urban renewal law.He intends to support urban renewal changes that really take care of
blight.

Green indicated the
Board could respond and comment and have the minutes of this meeting included
as part of that correspondence.He
wanted it to be a win-win situation.He
thought maybe there could be a revenue sharing that could benefit Lane
County.He suggested having the
Economic Development Committee meet so they could attach the comments from the
meeting as part of their comments.

Weinman commented if
there was anything that Lane County wanted to add to the plan, as a staff
person, he would pledge to bring it to the city council to encourage them to
adopt it as part of the plan.He added
that the state sets the urban renewal law, it is not a product of city
government.

Green asked Hampton
to convene a special meeting of the Economic Development Committee to discuss
this issue before the City of Eugene’s timeline.He asked Gangle to also be involved.He asked if there was a way to weigh in on the plan, with more
productive ideas that would benefit Lane County.He wanted the group to meet prior to February 23 so their
comments would be submitted to the City of Eugene with the concerns they
raised.

Dwyer requested
having the legislature change the law to allow Lane County to opt out.

Green asked Bieda
and Dwyer to work on the legislative change.

8.PUBLIC WORKS

a.FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND
PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1194/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County
General Plan Policies (An Element of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan)
by Revising Goal Two Policies 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21 And 27; Plan Designations
and Zoning Designations for Seventeen Unincorporated Rural Communities in the
Siuslaw Watershed and the Long Tom Watershed to Comply With Such Amendments;
and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Second Reading & Public
Hearing: February 18, 2004, 1:30 pm).

MOTION:to
approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public hearing for
February 18, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. for Ordinance PA 1194.

1)ORDER 04-2-4-4/In the Matter of
Increasing Revenue and Expense Appropriations in the Workforce Partnership Fund
(Fund 249) by $312,731 for Fiscal Year 2003-04.

F.Youth Services

1)ORDER 04-2-4-5/In the Matter of
Ratifying the Intergovernmental Agreementwith Oregon Youth Authority for Wraparound Services in the Amount of
$320,400 Increasing Appropriations and Expenditures in Youth Services in the
Amount of $37,110.

MOTION:to
approve the Consent Calendar.

Dwyer MOVED, Hampton
SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-0. (Morrison out of room).

10.CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

a.RESOLUTION AND ORDER 04-2-4-6/In the
Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign a Grant Application to
the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, for an
Eighteen Month Grant For Up to$1.5
Million to Support Planning and Development of Co-Located Coordinated Services
to Victims of Domestic Violence Into One Facility.

Alicia Hays,
Children and Families, asked the Board to approve that the County Administrator
sign a planning grant for the development ofco-located services to victims of domestic violence.She noted it is a $1.5 million grant, the
President’s Family Justice Initiative, a pilot that will provide communities
with resources for planning and development in the establishment of a
comprehensive domestic violence victim service center.She said this grant would be an opportunity
for all partners to come together to review the grant.She said it is an 18-month grant, not an
ongoing grant.She added that they have
been partnering with the District Attorney’s office.

Doug Harcleroad,
District Attorney, stated his recommendation is that they do this.He said they built the grant with
appropriate indirects.He added there
are only 12 sites around the country and it will be competitive.

MOTION:to
approve ORDER04-2-4-6.

Hampton MOVED,
Sorenson SECONDED.

Green asked how much
money was for planning, and if they finished the planning before 18 months, if
they could use the money to help the development.

Kamala Shugar,
District Attorney’s Office, participated in asking questions about the grant
and how the money could be spent.She
said they were hoping to take six months for planning.She said the overlap of the planning would
be part of the implementation.She noted
the idea is they could actually renovate one of the buildings of Lane County.
She said the rent and all infrastructure could be paid out of the grant.She hoped in the process of trying this out
during the 18-month period other community partners would find a way to
continue to staff the center with existing personnel.She added they discussed a fundraising scheme for keeping a
family justice center open, including corporate community partners who
contribute in kind or with donations to keep something like this going.She said the grant will pay for fundraising
outreach and they could end up improving a site that belongs to Lane
County.She added if it doesn’t work
out, Lane County would have an improved site.

Hampton thought this
was a good example of the county taking a leadership role on something that is
a critical issue.He was willing to
allow them to take the risk of going through the planning.

Dwyer supported the
concept of a family justice center but worries about the sustainability.

Steve Manela, Human
Services Commission, explained this is an important element of implementing the
community health center.He said it is
important to consider the sliding fee scale for the people they will serve at the
community health center.He said they
are trying to have a sliding fee schedule that is affordable for people who
don’t have health insurance and is appropriately based upon the means they have
available.He said this is part of the
fee setting for the community health center.He said the Board is being asked to approve the schedule and a minimum
fee of $20 for medical services and $35 for dental services.He added the other charges they charge OHP
or insurance companies is based upon what is normal and usual for a market
place.He said they use a standard to
what other community health centers in the state use, which is about 10% lower
than the commercial market.

MOTION:to
approve ORDER 04-2-4-7.

Dwyer MOVED,
Sorenson, SECONDED.

Dwyer commented that
this came to Finance and Audit and they thought it was a good opportunity to
serve 6,000 families in light of what is happening statewide.

VOTE: 4-0 (Morrison excused).

Manela noted the grand
opening of the health center is on March 1, 2004 in Springfield.

12.CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

None.

13.COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

14.EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

To be held after the
meeting.

16.OTHER BUSINESS

None.

There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed
the meeting into Executive Session at 11:40 a.m.